Author: user user

Artificial intelligence (AI) is moving into children’s schoolwork faster than many education systems can adapt, shifting the challenge from access to information toward judging whether machine-generated answers can be trusted.

Students now use generative AI to explain difficult concepts, develop essay ideas, check drafts, solve problems and prepare presentations, making chatbots another potential layer of everyday learning.

The arising challenge, according to pundits, is that the same systems can produce convincing but false information, fabricate sources and generate manipulated images, leaving children to distinguish useful assistance from answers that only sound correct.

Kaspersky’s observations show that children’s interest in AI tools continues to grow ‘as these technologies become more accessible and integrated into everyday learning.’

‘In fact, AI is likely to become as commonly part of their studies as search engines, online dictionaries and educational videos.’

The company’s guide comes as international education agencies shift their focus from whether children should encounter AI to how schools, parents and students should manage its use.

Unesco’s AI Competency Framework for Students recommends teaching children to develop human-centred attitudes, understand AI ethics, acquire technical knowledge and eventually participate in designing AI systems.

The framework places these competencies across three stages-understand, apply and create-reflecting a move toward preparing students to work with AI rather than treating the technology solely as a threat to academic integrity.

This reflects the modern-day reality that the availability of generative AI changes what it means to complete an assignment independently, particularly where a student can obtain a polished response without demonstrating how they reached it.

A child asking a chatbot to write an essay may receive a coherent answer within seconds, but the speed of producing the response can remove the research, reasoning, and writing practice that the assignment was designed to develop.

According to Kaspersky, learners need to start treating AI as an assistant that can, among other things, explain concepts, suggest arguments, identify weaknesses in a draft, or generate practice questions rather than completing schoolwork for the student.

A student using AI to solve a mathematics problem, for example, should be able to explain the method independently and reproduce the solution rather than simply transferring the chatbot’s response into an exercise book.

The same principle applies to research since a fluent AI response does not establish that its underlying information is accurate, current, or drawn from a genuine source.

‘When a child can generate an essay or receive a finished answer to a math problem in seconds, it may be tempting to submit the result without understanding it. This can save time in the moment, but it prevents the child from developing the very skills the assignment is intended to practice,’ it says.

‘Parents can agree with their children that AI may help explain a concept, suggest a structure, provide examples or ask practice questions, but it should not complete the entire task on their behalf.’

Unesco has warned that generative AI can create fabricated information and that education systems need safeguards because the technology is advancing faster than many regulatory and institutional responses.

A global Unesco survey of more than 450 schools and universities found in 2023 that fewer than 10 percent had formal guidance covering generative AI, highlighting how quickly the technology had entered education ahead of institutional rules.

In Kenya, the issue gathers particular relevance as the government’s National AI Strategy 2025-2030 identifies education among sectors where AI and digital skills are being integrated into the country’s broader technology agenda.

The strategy’s implementation roadmap also identifies limited access to devices, gaps in teacher training, and weaknesses in data privacy and security as challenges that could constrain digital education.

This means AI literacy cannot be reduced to teaching children how to write better prompts because they also need to understand the limits of the systems producing the responses.

Generative AI does not independently establish truth before producing an answer, meaning an apparently authoritative explanation can contain a wrong date, invented quotation, non-existent study or flawed reasoning.

Unicef says children are increasingly turning to AI chatbots for information, learning and creativity, while evidence on the effects of the technology on their cognitive, social and emotional development remains limited.

The privacy question becomes even more complicated when children begin using AI conversationally, as a homework prompt can easily contain private details about the student, such as their school, classmates or family.

A child asking for help with an assignment might paste an entire school document, upload a photograph of a worksheet, or include names and personal circumstances without considering the information as sensitive.

Kenya’s Data Protection Act requires parental or guardian consent before personal data relating to a child is processed and requires processing to protect and advance the child’s rights and best interests.

The Office of the Data Protection Commissioner has separately told the education sector that minors cannot provide valid consent on their own and that schools must ensure appropriate safeguards when processing children’s information.

For schools adopting AI tools, this puts data governance alongside academic considerations, requiring institutions to understand what information platforms collect, why it is processed and how long it is retained.

Unesco’s guidance, similarly, calls for privacy protection and age-appropriate approaches to the use of generative AI in education, while urging institutions to assess whether particular tools are ethically suitable.

The court ordered Zingo to hand over its premises, management, books, records, keys and other assets to the bank-appointed receiver and manager, Kolluri Venkata Subbaraya Kamasastry.

In the ruling, the court also authorised police assistance to enforce the takeover after rejecting Zingo’s bid to halt enforcement pending an appeal.

‘An order is hereby issued restraining the Plaintiff’s directors, employees, agents, and any other person acting under its authority from interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the second defendant (receiver) in the lawful discharge of his duties as Receiver and Manager of the Plaintiff’s business and assets,’ the court ordered in the ruling dated September 1, 2026.

The ruling followed failed mediation and two applications after the court dismissed Zingo’s earlier bid to stop NBK and its receiver from taking over and operating its business.

NBK said Zingo had defaulted since a 2017 consent acknowledging $5.6 million (Sh733 million), while the company argued enforcement would cause loss.

The dispute began after NBK advanced facilities to Zingo to establish a leather factory on property registered as LR No. 9363/98 and provide working capital.

The facilities were secured by charges of $882,354 over LR No. 209/8628 and $2.2 million over LR No. 9363/98, a floating debenture of $794,000 and directors’ guarantees totalling $3.47 million.

The bank’s representative, Paul Chelang’a, told the court that the company has been in default since the December 20, 2017 consent, which acknowledged an outstanding debt of $5,666,000, and has repeatedly made applications to hinder the lender’s recovery efforts.

He also stated that recent valuations set the forced-sale values of the two properties at Sh661 million, which he said was not enough to cover the outstanding debt. He asserts that the Bank has properly issued the required demand and statutory notices.

Furthermore, he argued that this was the company’s sixth attempt to prevent the statutory power of sale, claiming the application was an abuse of court process, the plaintiff remains in default, and there was no sufficient basis for the orders requested.

An earlier judgment says that a 2017 consent consolidated the debt at $5.66 million and provided a further $1.1 million working-capital facility.

In March 2024, the High Court rejected Zingo’s claim against NBK, holding that the company had acknowledged the debt but disputed how funds were handled.

The court said interest and penalty disputes did not justify withholding the principal. In January 2025, the Court of Appeal declined to stop NBK from exercising its remedies.

The latest dispute concerns receivership and emerged after NBK appointed Kamasastry as receiver and manager in August 2025. He took control of the business on September 1 before an interim injunction issued the following day stopped him. That injunction remained in force until Zingo’s application was dismissed on April 30, 2026.

Zingo filed an appeal and sought another injunction, arguing that the appeal could be rendered useless if NBK proceeded with enforcement. It also asked the court to send the dispute to mediation and allow it to amend its plaint.

The court rejected those requests. It said the April dismissal was a ‘negative judgment’ because it did not require either defendant to perform an executable act.

‘There is nothing arising from the dismissal order capable of being stayed,’ said the judge.

In relation to mediation, the court noted that the dispute had already gone through court-annexed mediation, but a report filed showed that the receiver had declined to participate.

‘Mediation is inherently a voluntary process that relies on the parties’ good faith participation. Given the circumstances, referring the case to mediation again would be pointless and only cause delays in resolving the pending applications,’ the court said.

Mr Kamasastry sought orders allowing him access to Zingo’s premises and control of its business, assets and affairs. He said employees and director Robert Njoka had prevented him from returning after the April ruling. He also alleged resistance despite police presence and a threat involving a firearm.

Zingo denied obstructing or threatening the receiver. It argued that the April ruling merely dismissed its injunction application and did not authorise a forcible takeover. The company said it remained a going concern and that taking control would cause substantial loss.

The court rejected that position and allowed Mr Kamasastry’s application in full. It said the receiver’s appointment had already been upheld and that the September 2025 injunction lapsed when Zingo’s application was dismissed.

‘The Plaintiff’s continued obstruction of the receiver is unlawful and cannot be tolerated,’ the court said. It added that the alleged threat to the receiver’s team was ‘a matter of grave concern’ and could lead to contempt proceedings if substantiated.

The court’s final orders require Zingo and its personnel to give Kamasastry unrestricted access to the properties -LR No. 9363/98 and LR No. 209/8628. They are also required to hand over management, assets, books, records, documents and keys, and must not interfere with his duties.

The Officer Commanding Mwiki Police Station, Infinity Police Post or the Officer Commanding any police station in proximity to the Plaintiff’s premises were authorised to assist if necessary.